Steen v. Chudy CA6

Filed 1/30/15 Steen v. Chudy CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ELIJAH STEEN, a Minor, etc., et al., H040003 (Monterey County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. M121547)

v.

RAYMOND CHUDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendants Raymond Chudy and the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (hereafter referenced collectively as “Chudy”) appeal an order denying their special motion to strike a complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 Chudy contends that the court erred in denying the motion, as the causes of action alleged in a complaint filed by plaintiffs Elijah Steen and his guardian ad litem Monia Diane Williams (hereafter referenced collectively as “Steen”) arose from activity protected under section 425.16. However, because the gravamen of the complaint is damages arising out of bodily injury, and thus, as we explain below, not a protected category of conduct, we will affirm the order.

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 18, 2013, Steen filed a complaint, alleging a violation of the Ralph Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7), a violation of the Bane Act (Civ. Code, § 52.1), assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The causes of action were based on disciplinary actions that Chudy took against Steen on February 23, 2012. On that date, Chudy was working as substitute teacher at La Mesa Elementary School. Steen was one of the students at La Mesa Elementary. During lunchtime, Steen began misbehaving while he was standing in the lunch line. Chudy had first verbally responded to Steen’s behavior, but Steen continued to disobey instructions. Steen alleged that “[a]fter a brief verbal intervention, CHUDY, without justification, grabbed [Steen]’s neck, pushed him down, and physically and verbally intimidated him.” On April 3, 2013, Chudy filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Steen’s complaint. In his motion, Chudy argued that Steen’s claims arose from statements and actions related to an “official proceeding,” and was therefore protected under section 425.16, subdivision (e). On April 29, 2013, Steen filed an opposition to the special motion to strike. In the opposition, Steen argued that Chudy could not show that the claims arose from protected activity because (1) the gravamen of the action was physical battery and was therefore not “speech or petitioning activity,” and (2) the act of disciplining a student was not considered an “official proceeding” as contemplated by section 425.16, subdivisions (e). Additionally, Steen argued that he could show a probability of prevailing on his claims. After the trial court held a hearing on the special motion to strike, it entered an order dated July 8, 2013, in which it denied the motion. The court found that though “plaintiff’s claim arose from statements made in an official disciplinary proceeding . . . the activity from which plaintiff’s claim arose involved no expressive act and was, therefore not subject to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute.”